| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> The other side (anyway, my side) has been to state time and time again, that
> science is wonderful for what it does, but cannot encompass *everything*, as
> shown by, imho, the impeccable logic presented--there are concepts and
> ideals that exist outside science and not once has *that* issue been
> properly dealt with. The discussion string comes to a halt and a new easier
> target coems up (a la morality).
OK David, I wasn't trying to wriggle away from your point. And maybe I'm just
slow, but I really don't get the impeccable logic that you're presenting.
Let's focus on this one really small idea for a bit. What is it that to your
way of thinking is outside the realm of scientific inquiry, that I (or others)
have been ignoring?
Do you agree that the scientific method is a good tool for investigating
_anything_ that can be perceived? That would be my assertion.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) Anything in the physical world can be investigated by the scientific method. Art maybe made of physical properties such as clay, rock, dyes(paint) on canvas, whatever. However, most artists say they were 'inspired', whether by a muse or (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) This is *not* a discussion on the merits of science. I have stated time and time again that I *love* science and what it does (for the most bit--velcro--too much noise!) One side of this discussion esteems science to be the *only* factor for (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
